Iowa08: Archives

BETH PALMER writes:
From a mess of paper strips piled in a ceramic mug, I picked the one with Bill Richardson’'s name. This means my first story for “Covering the Iowa Caucus” should focus on how the governor of New Mexico ranked among the Democrats as they each court support for what could sway voters in the primary elections kicking off in New Hampshire January 8.

But the story could be about how he didn't rank at all.

Bill Richardson gets virtually zero press because he’'s number four behind Democrats Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards. There’'s just no room for him in pie charts and sidebars profiling the “top three.”

In Iowa, I expect a similar reaction to the one I have been receiving here from friends: “"Never heard of him."” And, if the caucus reflects recent Iowa polls that list his support at seven percent, he won'’t garner the required 15 percent support from Iowans on caucus night.

That said, a high percentage of support at the caucus could help candidates, but doing poorly doesn'’t set their fate in stone. In 1992, Bill Clinton did not have the most support in the caucus, but did go on to win the Democratic nomination and, of course, the presidency.

But Clinton lost in Iowa to a senator from Iowa. In recent years, the candidates who ended up receiving the most support in Iowa won the presidential nomination.

For Richardson to not place in the Iowa caucus but go on to win the Democratic presidential bid would be making history and also, I suspect, make a couple of sourpusses out of Hillary and Barack.

Beth Palmer is an undergraduate journalism student from Chicago.

BETH PALMER writes:
Iowans will tell you they deserve to be first in the nation because over time, they have learned their role. They have learned to ask presidential candidates on the campaign trail the tough questions and come out to caucus, Iowans will say. And they will tell you a primary-election voting process, as we have in Illinois, could not work in Iowa because it's been tried before and failed miserably.

But as a witness to the January 3 Democratic caucus, I wonder: have we been blinded by the endearing notion of “neighbors working together,” thereby allowing an inaccurate and inefficient, albeit quite exciting system, to influence the entire nation’'s subsequent voting?

“"Is there anyone I did not count?’" shouted a woman with a Hillary Clinton haircut to a group of Obama supporters. No one raised their hand, but why did she have to ask?

“"Louder!”" pleaded one of the hundreds of elderly Iowans who strained to hear their fellow elderly precinct chairman, who was explaining the caucus process in his strongest voice. Why not use a microphone or a megaphone?

“"Does anyone have a calculator?”" asked another precinct chair after the head count ended and he needed to determine the number needed for viability in that precinct.

“"Don'’t blame me, blame the Algonquin Indians who invented this process!”" another precinct chair said in rebuttal to the roaring reaction of caucus-goers who had just learned they would have to realign or regroup for a second time.

The caucus was both admirable and alarming. It raised my hope in humanity, and it raised questions of accuracy.

Should we let Iowans continue with their endearing tradition because it’'s easier, or change the system for next year?

Beth Palmer is an undergraduate journalism student from Chicago.

BETH PALMER writes:
I should know how to write this final blog.

I've been excitedly telling any family member or friend who will listen what I learned during the Covering the Iowa Caucuses class since we returned from the Quad-Cities area January 5.

Before January 3, I never knew how the primary election delegate system worked—or how it led up to each party's national convention—let alone how democratic caucuses tallied support. This knowledge will help me inform people in my life and also help me as I cover politics in the future.

I spoke with one freelance journalist from Chicago who had been sent to Bettendorf, Iowa, and she said she had no idea how the caucuses worked. She said she had been "thrown into it." I can say when it comes to covering presidential primaries and caucuses, I will never be in her bind; the knowledge I obtained is forever ingrained because we were there, we weren't just learning from a workbook in a classroom.

In regards to pure logistics of political reporting, I learned I should have spent more time before the caucuses writing what I could of my story, leaving more time and brain energy to collect interviews in reaction to the results later in the evening. By the time the caucuses ended, I felt mentally drained and had to make an incredible effort to contact sources for reaction interviews.

In a span of three days I also learned how to handle politicians' tough press people. And I learned from my classmates and teachers important questions to ask citizens as well as candidates.

This class epitomized the learning-by-doing philosophy. It was an excellent opportunity, and I got more out of it than I had expected—and I had high expectations.

Beth Palmer is an undergraduate journalism student from Chicago.